Comments on: Fan Graphs projects the 2014 standingshttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/
Baseball. Baseball. And then a bit more baseball.Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:17:47 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Francisco (FC)http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670330
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:38:12 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670330I guess that depends on how the O’s improvements compare to other team’s improvements.
]]>By: Francisco (FC)http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670328
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:36:28 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670328Aw well, we all make them.
]]>By: Francisco (FC)http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670327
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:33:35 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670327As has been explained already, these are the “averages” of running a simulation many times. This means that “on average” you can expect a team like the Red Sox to usually win 91 games, but most likely if they outperform their projection they will end up with 95-97. If they perform relative to their projection they will reach 91. If the under perform they’ll win less games.

Essentially these values are “baselines”, it will be interesting to compare these values to the end of the season, it provides a way to say who outperformed expectations and who under performed expectations.

I sat next to a so-called expert in a Sports Book during a Super Bowl, who by the 4th quarter was plum-face, standing and screaming at the refs on the Big Screen TV, “Fix…this F’n game is FIXED!”

He had bet his house on the game, and he was down 30 points against the spread with 3 minutes to play.

That’s how they build Billion Dollar Resorts…letting the ‘experts’ put their money where their mouth is.

Everybody is an ‘expert’ at predictions….until they try to prove it. If you could predict the future…in anything…you would not be here arguing online. You would be on the phone with people paying you millions for your predictions.

So good luck everybody arguing about predictions.

I will watch the games. It is why they are played. If we knew the winner, there would be no reason to watch.

]]>By: rockthered1286http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670248
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:49:28 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670248“That being said, I do see them being better than Toronto because until they actually perform to something even remotely resembling their talent levels I am not going to assume they will…”

How can you use this logic against a Toronto team who, by the same token, has not performed to something even remotely resembling their talent level? You are assuming they will project better than the O’s based on what then?

They way I see it- the O’s IMPROVED at the DH spot (Cruz over the mess of players last year), in the rotation (Jimenez over Feldman), in the bullpen (Webb, Yoon added), and at 2B (Schoop/Flaherty better than Roberts at 36). So how is a team who finished a few games over .500 last year projected to finish worse after improving the team as a whole? The only question mark is LF, which could be a bust in Lough or a big increase in production if a healthy Reimold can play to his expected talent levels.I understand that’s speculation, but so is assuming Jiminez’s second half of 2013 was a fluke based on the teams he pitched against. And let’s not ignore the fact that the 2013 Orioles led the league in HR’s and had the best defense in the league last year…

Basically what I’m driving at is that I don’t understand how you can justify assumptions for the worst (the O’s will finish poorly), but it’s inexcusable to assume for the best (they will maintain or improve from the 2013 record) when all signs indicate the latter.

Publishing “projections” that you know are wrong, that you can’t rationalize, that you yourself contradict in your own writings, does nothing for the advancement of the subject.

There is nothing contradictory in their predictions. They run a simulation 100,000+ times and take the average number of wins for each time, then publish it. That’s where we get the low(er) numbers, because it’s an average of that many simulations.

However, most seasons don’t play out like the “average.” As I bolded above, a team that stays healthy, gets above average production from some key players, and gets a little bit of luck on their side can out perform the average projection and possibly win the division.

As I mentioned below, if you want to see the more extreme predictions, wait until BPro does their PECOTA predictions. Their 90% standings show the extremes that everyone seems to pine for.

Also nice cheap-shot at the “pseudo” mathematician or statistician. Why not just tell these “nerds” to go back to their mother’s basement.

]]>By: perryt200http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/comment-page-2/#comment-670185
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 05:36:07 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670185Well I guess these guys are a lot smarter than I am. The Cards are so deep the position charts are about endless but saying they are gonna win the NL Central is a good call.
]]>By: pchuck69http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670183
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 05:15:03 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670183@churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Everyone thinks the projections are off. Clay Davenport, by your very own quote, thinks the projections are wrong.

The projections are wrong. Why they are wrong is irrelevant to everyone other than the person who did the projection. They need to adjust their algorithm. Any pseudo-mathematician or statistician can do what Clay Davenport has accomplished here.

Publishing “projections” that you know are wrong, that you can’t rationalize, that you yourself contradict in your own writings, does nothing for the advancement of the subject.

]]>By: nelmoran2014http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/comment-page-2/#comment-670126
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:13:30 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670126Reblogged this on marty.moran.
]]>By: stex52http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670120
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:53:49 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670120Monte Carlo
]]>By: stex52http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670119
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:53:04 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670119Paper has the right solution. They should print these numbers with one standard deviation variances. That would be a better way to express deviations from prediction. It would also emphasize the extent to which a team over- or under- performed the model at the end of the season.

I assume this is some version of Mote Carlo projection. And the problem is just as stated. They took the lineup, made assumptions about variance, and ran it a million times. But you only play the season once. It’s putting discrete numbers on a continuous function set.

]]>By: spudchukarhttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670098
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:04:29 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670098What? I was trying to point out how mundane, obvious and needless your clarification was. As if anybody with an IQ above 50 wouldn’t already know what you “enlightened” us with.
]]>By: spudchukarhttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670097
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:01:30 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670097Experts!? You are a believer. Kiss Dave Cameron’s ring. The heretic notion that someone, might just be a better predictor of the 2014 season, than Fangraphs is inconceivable to followers. And it isn’t as if Fangraphs has a great prognostic record, as even they are willing to admit.

Don’t worry you will have my forecasts in a couple of days. Bookmark it. Print copies. Etch my selections in stone if you care to. I will be happy to compare come year’s end.

You know just like I did last year, and the year before.

]]>By: hotkarlsandwichhttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670091
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:37:32 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670091You’re probably referring to only the AL but I remember the 2006 Cardinals winning the division and World Series with only 83 wins.
]]>By: spudchukarhttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670079
Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:59:45 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670079No matter how you slice it, they are still wrong. This is the problem when people fall in love with a system. The inability to find fault. Dogma.

You are championing the inaccurate. Excusing its failures because it is “conservative”, is head scratching. Of what interest is it? What good is it? It does little to advance knowledge. If it refuses to address randomness, then I have no use for it whatsoever.

]]>By: stupidusernamehttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/comment-page-2/#comment-670078
Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:57:15 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670078That’s a tight pack across… well, pretty much the whole league. Should make for an exciting September, right??
]]>By: paperlionshttp://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/fan-graphs-projects-the-2014-standings/#comment-670076
Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:52:13 +0000http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=514436#comment-670076I bet I could do better than you by projecting every team I think sucks to win 75 games, every team I think is good to win 87 games, and every other team to win 81 games.

The reasons people always bitch about projections is because projections are conservative, but they are conservative because on average that is the more accurate approach.

People may like them better if they put error bars around them rather than just presenting the means….but probably not.